Scabs complaining about the steward not representing them

[PobreCarlos]

Techgrrl;

Here I'll just choose to address one of your comments, specifically that of....

"I was personally involved in a lot of innovation in operations and technology that made a difference in the way UPS did things.

...because it's an area with which I had a fairly intimate and personal familiarity, in that I saw first hand just how "innovative" UPS was in the 70's through the mid-80's....and just how isolated those in the technical support areas (in Greenwich and Paramus) were from actual operations and the ability to provide innovation in same. If anything, I suspect the company was more hide-bound then than now. Yep, they had some good technical people...solely in terms of "technical". And they rode rough-shod over operations in the area of technology while lacking essentially ANY knowledge of how that technology could help the operators and/or the company at large Outside of handing out PC's and a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 to the Districts, I'm not sure they accomplished anything for the company as a whole....and I'm not even sure that could be considered an "accomplishment". It took OPERATORS who had operation knowledge to begin with, and then developed technical knowledge on their own as well before any significant technical innovation could be produced. The technicians not only didn't know how to solve the problems, they didn't even KNOW the problems, even in terms of their existence. Personally (and this is an area in which I have some knowledge), I think the company is much more aware of "bottom-up" solutions today that it was back then...if only because it got burned (and burned fairly badly, although that's not something the company likes to advertise) by its "top down" strategy back then. Perhaps your experience is different...but, if you were one of those in so-called "technical support" back in the period you were speaking of (mid-70's onward), it's an experience I would concede little credit to.

 

[CharleyHustle]

CharleyHustle;

Perhaps you haven't noticed,
Sorry, but reality is reality....

I'm going to take that as a *no*, that you don't have any documentation or study results to support this claim. While the rest of your post is verifiably accurate, it in no way substantiates your claim that workers at a unionized company that don't pay dues are more "go-getters" than the workers that pay dues. If anything I could surmise that they are certainly less "go-getters" because they are choosing to stay at a moribund unionized company instead of taking all of those wonderful jobs at those cutting edge companies you sited. Of course those hundreds of thousands of "achive(rs) on their own" exist at FedEx, and the question is why don't these "go-getters" join the achievers?

 

[PobreCarlos]

CharleyHustle;

The reality of today's situation you take as "not hav[ing] any documentation", 'eh? Well, guess I can't argue with logic like that, can I? [smile]

As for their not "join[ing] the achievers"...well, one might ask; just who do you think the "achievers" are? Those who are watching - and pushing! - their employers out of business year by year? Or those who are building solid careers based on their work ethic in which they ADVANCE the interests of those that employ them? Want a hint? Take a look at the major union membership statistics over the last 3 or 4 decades...and consider that each and every member unit lost during that time represents a JOB loss as well. Actually, in the case of the Teamsters, they represent "more than" job losses; those lost by the Teamsters were primarily good core-industry transportation jobs, which, outside of those provided by UPS, have only been PARTIALLY replaced by primarily bed-pan emptier and sheet changer positions and such. To my mind, although ANY well-performed job is nothing to be ashamed of, those that are holding on to a demonstrably failed labor position generally aren't the type of "achievers" I think one should be proud of; fact is, they've been our economy's biggest losers.

BTW, aren't you aware of UPSers who went to FedEx? Or those that were recruited by RPS way back when? Probably aren't too many still around...but more than a few made the transition, and more than that used that competition for their services to advance their personal interests, even if they didn't actually change employers.

In any case, I stand by my statement.

 

[TechGrrl]

CharleyHustle;

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many (in terms of real numbers) HAVE "take[n] their services to a non-union company like say... FedEx"....or do you believe that those hundreds of thousands of FedEx jobs which NON-union employees have chosen to fill don't exist?

Sorry, but I come from a time when those jobs DIDN'T exist...and I doubt that they'd exist today if it weren't for the intransigence of the Teamsters. As for decertification, have you been following the statistics of union membership in the private sector today...or noticed the incredible number of jobs that HAVE been "decertified" in one way or another?

Lastly, if it's NOT the "go-getters" (the most cost-effective) who choose to be non-union, then why are so many companies making it clear that they would prefer to NOT have a "union" workforce? Seems to me that if "union" was the most cost-effective option, companies would be falling all over themselves to be organized. Is that what's happening? Are companies, for example, migrating to NON-"RTW" states? If so, how does one explain the movement of Cat's Electro-Motive work from Ontario to a plant in Indiana....immediately AFTER Indiana passed RTW legislation? Or, speaking of Indiana again, why did Honda choose to place an automotive plant in Indiana in a locale that was traditionally NON-union in lieu of establishing it in the heavily UAW-organized areas of north central Indiana? Or go to the extreme of saying that it would hire only from the counties immediately surrounding that facility, thus effectively locking-out (in terms of employment) the [supposedly] "experienced", RIFed auto workers in Delaware, Madison, and similar UAW-strong counties? Or how does one explain Boeing's choice of of S.C. over (traditional) Washington for the opening of its new aircraft assembly plant? Or all the "foreign" auto makers that chose to open plants in MS, AL, SC, TN, etc?

Sorry, but reality is reality....the point being that workers generally are NOT choosing to be "thrown in"

Union membership peaked in 1979. In 1981, Ronald Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers Union, and conservatives followed that example by agressively fighting unionization.

In the last 30 years, the US economy has changed in many ways. Globalization meant that manufacturing jobs could be exported to low-wage countries, decimating the manufacturing sector. Woman joined the workforce, but concentrated in service sector jobs that were harder to organize. Employers went to the 'independent contractor' and 'part time worker' model, which meant they didn't have to worry about union organizing. They also 'outsourced' to temp help firms, which again helped make it harder to unionize.

FedEx has arguably used 'independent contractors' to fight off unionization. Go read the FedEx part of this board to see that there are lots of folks who think they are getting screwed. There are also more than one legal opinion out there (working their way through the appeals process) that FedEx is ILLEGALLY using 'independent contractor' status to side-step labor law.

Your questions about the 'business friendly' states of the south pretty much answer themselves. The Old Confederacy has always been a patrician, aristocratic based economy. After the Civil War, the ruling class pretty much set the poor whites against the freed slaves by threatening to use the cheap labor of the ex-slaves to undercut the work of the poor whites. "Divide and Conquer" is still a workable strategy today. Ask Scott Walker in Wisconsin. By law and custom, employees in the South have always been at a disadvantage to their employers. Painting this as a meritocracy is simply specious.

One thing is certain: a graph of union membership paired with median wages adjusted for inflation, goes DOWN in lockstep over the last 30 years. Productivity has gone UP over that same 30 years, but median wages have NOT. So the plutocracy continues to sweep more coins into their pockets, while the working people of this country get screwed.

Meanwhile, the Ayn Rand/John Galt crowd mewls about "makers versus takers", and thumps their chests about how they should just go on strike until the peons appreciate them more...ignoring completely the fact that entrepreneurs succeed in a matrix of a community that supports all of us with laws and infrastructure that has been built up over the years by the efforts of all of us. A true libertarian society looks a lot more like Somalia than it does like Galt's valley in Atlas Shrugged....

 

[PobreCarlos]

Techgrrl;

H.m.m.m.....seems to me that if so many FedEx people see themselves as "getting screwed", then they can simply WALK OUT! Screwing stopped! No "ifs", "ands", or "buts". Given that relatively extremely few seem to be doing so, I think I'll stick with my premise, thank you!

In truth, I heard Teamsters claim more than more than thirty years ago that they'd have FedEx (which, at the time, was NOT a "contractor" company by any means) organized within a "matter of months". The fact that, a third of a century later, they're no closer to getting FedEx "organized" than they were way back when speaks volumes as to just what Fred's employees/contractors want from my perspective. They know which side their bread is buttered on, and seem to be willing to do what it takes to MAINTAIN THEIR EMPLOYMENT. UPSers have done relatively well along those lines, too...but as for Teamsters generally over that period of time? Nope; the defining characterisitic of a Teamster job over the last 35 years is that it most likely no longer exists. The majority of jobs Teamsters once held at that time have been lost...to be only partially replaced by (adjusted) lower paying positions. That, again, is simply reality.

Beyond that, I think you're redrawing the actual slope (and composition) of the "graph". What has gone DOWN over the last 30 years are TOTAL wages earned by union members, simply because those union members DROVE AWAY THEIR JOBS!!!! Did that affect the "median wage"? No doubt; any time an entity forces employers to seek labor elsewhere (and please don't claim that unions haven't performed that function; one look at the Mexican maquiladoras, or the vast number of items imported into this country from locales such as China should convince even the most left-leaning "techgrrl" of that reality), wages are going to be affected. As a rule, THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE JOBS ARE GOING TO "EARN" LESS THAN THOSE THAT DO!!!!

As for your discriminatory drivel about the South, and how much currency it has in relation to the current economic situation...well, I'm sorry, but from this perspective, it sounds more like sour grapes from an individual who resents the fact that a group of more competitive states are GAINING jobs (and income), while those states which have mired themselves in the same type of attitude that you have are LOSING theirs, to say nothing of floundering economically. Seen a vast migration of individuals from the RTW states going to non-RTW climes like Michigan seeking employment over the last few years, have ya'? Or what about the company we both seem to have worked for? When I begain, it was headquarted in NYC, and then some time later moved to more leafy Greenwich. But eventually it moved to one of those "Confederate" states, where it remains today. Why, one wonders?

Consider something for a moment; what are the CURRENT adjusted TOTAL wages of ALL Teamsters today compared to that figure 40 years ago? What about that of the union auto workers - the UAW? Or the USW? Or that of the UFCW? Or the IAM? See a problem there? What's happening is that you're trying to blame a problem people like YOU created and which people like YOU have maintained on those who actually provide jobs. The economic reality is that, if people like you figuratively kick those jobs providers in the teeth, then they're simply going to take their jobs elsewhere. And, ultimately, there's not a single thing people like you can do about the situation except to make yourself more attractive to those employers by becoming competitive yourself.

A few days ago, I got back from a short trip to Spain. Over there, as you can imagine, all the talk is about the economic crisis...and, most specifically, the vast amount of capital that is leaving the country. Capital flight - and we've seen it to some degree over here as well - is a terrible thing. Capital supports jobs and is the basis of economies generally. Without it, countries suffer. But why does it leave? Essentially because too many people such as yourself buy into the idea that corporate interests, or whatever, OWE them something, simply because they exist....that, somehow, the big, bad "corporations" need to be your sugar daddy on the basis of what you WANT instead of what you have to PROVIDE.

Good luck with that. If you want to deny reality, then you go right ahead. Just remember, however, that it IS reality.

 

[CharleyHustle]

CharleyHustle;

As for their not "join[ing] the achievers"...well, one might ask; just who do you think the "achievers" are?

I'm not really sure in your world it matters a hoot what I think. If I think unions should organize and seek better conditions, for you this means they are driving jobs overseas and fine companies out of business. If unions just try to maintain what they have, well then they are putting downward pressure on wages. I do think I could guess who you think achievers are, they are the ones who put coins in your pocket.

I also think that employees are employees and not employers for a reason. We can go on and on and argue these reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. Unions have certainly bungled many things in the past and present, but at their essence they are only employees and not employers. Employers, bare the sole responsibility for the success or failure of their enterprise and if they hire employees, dues paying or not, who are under "achievers" that's totally on them. Yes, you list many companies and instances of employers trying to improve their lot in life, aahh, that's our capitalist system in action. They have every right, just like all employers to seek those opportunities. You on the other hand, sound like an old management friend of mine who I chided for complaining about his plight to the hired help, it sounds good, but it really doesn't put any more coins in your pocket.

 

[PobreCarlos]

CharleyHustle;

Believe it or not, I'm in agreement with much of what you say. Where we disagree, however, seems to be in the area of employee/union responsibility. For example, what "better conditions" should unions be seeking? If they seek "conditions" which are going to drive employers away, in what way are they bettering the lot of their members...or domestic workers generally? I do agree that "employers, bare the sole responsibility for the success or failure of their enterprise"....but when employers, reflecting on their experiences in dealing with union labor, come to feel that their success depends on their NOT being "organized", what is a union's response? Take the Teamsters pension funds, for example. While they've made some (rather artificial) changes of late in terms of withdrawal liability, what chance do they have of organizing new entities within their traditional industry when the very prospect of being organized - with the subsequent pension liability - is seen as a death sentence by potential employers? Employers literally (and rightly, I think) believe that, while fighting the union today might be a costly and risky process, its a vastly superior choice to being organized and virtually assured of being put out of business. "Yes", there are exceptions, UPS being the most notable. But of the largest 100 trucking companies of a few decades ago - virtually all of which were "Teamsters" - how many are still in existence today? And even at UPS, many contribute the company's success to the fact that the Teamsters have a far lower level of penetration than they did 20 or 30 years ago...to the point where less than 50% of the company's employees are actual Teamster members today.

In that sense, I think I have a *LOT* of sympathy for "the hired help", if only because so many of them have thrown their lot in with a losing cause. I feel for the once-upon-a-time employees of CFWY, Red Star, and the scores of other Teamster-organized companies that are no longer in existence...while their NON-organized brethren have prospered. I feel for all the "could-have-been" full-time UPS employees who DON'T enjoy that status because the union stupidly put selfish short-term interests above its members long-term welfare....thus allowing a non-organized competitor to take all those jobs off the table. To me, when you're talking about "put[ting] coins in your pocket", a worker's first concern is having a SOURCE to OBTAIN those coins to put in their pocket. Without that, talk of anything else is mere rhetoric. And in that sense - and I think it's a very real sense - those of the "union" persuasion (as many of the unions are constituted TODAY, at least), have been anything but "achievers". Instead, they've been losers...big time losers! The numbers don't lie.

Meanwhile, companies have learned that they can exist - and even prosper! - without today's domestic unions. And, along the way, they've also discovered that, if push comes to shove, they can even exist without domestic labor period. For many of them, that realization now directs the path they follow. How do workers - particularly "union" workers change the direction of that path? By being even MORE obstinate? To me, the ONLY way that has a chance of bringing about real change is showing employers that choosing domestic "union" labor is the most VIABLE option in terms of cost-effectiveness; i.e. - employers have to be seduced by what workers/unions have to OFFER, not by threats of the damage they can do....threats which successful companies are already aware of and have taken effective measures to nullify.

I just don't see the logic behind the sort of attitude based on beating an employer to submission. Over the long run - and corporations do think of the "long run" - it just doesn't work. So why completely alienate an entity on which your very livelihood depends? Makes no sense to me.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Believe it or not

Yes.... I believe you still live in your mommies basement.

You have been regurgitating the same BS for "How Long" ???.... Years....


Wait.... you needed to get out for a tune-up

Sweet Ride

 

[PobreCarlos]

BigUnionGuy;

Yep...and you've been the one who's been able to responsibly verify that it's all "BS", haven't you? [smile]

 

[BigUnionGuy]

*grin*

 

[UnconTROLLed]

scb Libertarian? hah.

 

[ups clerk]

If you don't pay u should forfeit all rights union employees have they should not even be allowed to file as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately, it is a Federal Law that they have to be represented. I live in Missouri also a steward, and scared to death that The Right to Work law will not only be voted on, but will probably pass. If that is the case, I just might step down, too.

 

[Catatonic]

I understand how you feel but if there is proof that a Union representative is not providing the same representation and support to all union represented employees, he/she can charged with a crime and even go to jail.

Unfortunately, it is a Federal Law that they have to be represented. I live in Missouri also a steward, and scared to death that The Right to Work law will not only be voted on, but will probably pass. If that is the case, I just might step down, too.

And jails are overflowing with union reps for this nearly impossible to prove charge.

Probably the same number of UPS management in jail for violating the UPS/Teamster contract ... but wait, that doesn't make sense.
One can only be put in jail for a criminal offense ... not for a contract violation.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Probably the same number of UPS management in jail for violating the UPS/Teamster contract ... but wait, that doesn't make sense.
One can only be put in jail for a criminal offense ... not for a contract violation.

Not trying to put words in the mouth of "Inthegame".... But, I think he is being sarcastic.

The Union, has a fiduciary obligation to represent the members.

As long as you don't refuse, to represent someone.... You are immune from civil liability.

They can file NLRB charges.... But, most don't go anywhere.... they just cost the Local and the company.... money.... to defend.



-Bug-

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Southerners have a strong work ethic and a strong sense of principle and a strong sense of individuality.

I definitiely agree. Although I would add personal responsibility to that.

 

[Old International]

I definitiely agree. Although I would add personal responsibility to that.

Amen to that. Here is SC, UPS isn't afraid of the union. What UPS is afraid of is the state run fair labor board. They have the law on their side, and they can and will impose fines on the company for wrong doing.
I also discovered very early on the the goals of the union, and my goals were not the same. THe union wanted, and still does, a huge amount of money to represent an employee. Some employee's pay this as a cheap insurance policy to keep their job. I have found that UPS is very understanding concerning rule breakage- Hell, you can get away with almost ANYTHING once. I have broken a number of rules- But when caught, I owned up to the mistake- if on purpose or not. I paid the price, and got on with my life. Now, I am in a position of trust, and my immediate supervisors trust my judgement. If I make a mistake, it's more "I wouldn't have done it that way, I would have done it this way". Thats fine, and I will do it their way if and when the circumstances dictate.
I guess what I am saying- I am not afraid to take responsibility for my actions, and therefore, don't need the services of a union.

 

[govols019]

How do you define "huge amount of money?"

 

[Jackburton]

Amen to that. Here is SC, UPS isn't afraid of the union. What UPS is afraid of is the state run fair labor board. They have the law on their side, and they can and will impose fines on the company for wrong doing.
I also discovered very early on the the goals of the union, and my goals were not the same. THe union wanted, and still does, a huge amount of money to represent an employee. Some employee's pay this as a cheap insurance policy to keep their job. I have found that UPS is very understanding concerning rule breakage- Hell, you can get away with almost ANYTHING once. I have broken a number of rules- But when caught, I owned up to the mistake- if on purpose or not. I paid the price, and got on with my life. Now, I am in a position of trust, and my immediate supervisors trust my judgement. If I make a mistake, it's more "I wouldn't have done it that way, I would have done it this way". Thats fine, and I will do it their way if and when the circumstances dictate.
I guess what I am saying- I am not afraid to take responsibility for my actions, and therefore, don't need the services of a union.

If everything was on the up and up I'd agree with you. Both side have their problems and one bad manager can fire you for whatever they want and throw you under the bus. I've personally seen someone get fired because he made the center manager "mad" for doing what his driver sup told him to do. When confronted the sup threw him under the bus and said he never said such things. Without representation this driver wouldn't be here now, all because of this one manager who was later "moved" because of other reported baseless terminations. I have also personally had management tell me that they would fire me and even though I'd get my job back, they'll teach me a lesson for being a smartass. To this I responded, "make sure you have my backpay check on your desk when I do come back".

Wether or not you need them or don't, they negotiated your pay and benefits, to which I gladly pay dues in my RTW state of Georgia.

 

[728ups]

Amen to that. Here is SC, UPS isn't afraid of the union. What UPS is afraid of is the state run fair labor board. They have the law on their side, and they can and will impose fines on the company for wrong doing.
I also discovered very early on the the goals of the union, and my goals were not the same. THe union wanted, and still does, a huge amount of money to represent an employee. Some employee's pay this as a cheap insurance policy to keep their job. I have found that UPS is very understanding concerning rule breakage- Hell, you can get away with almost ANYTHING once. I have broken a number of rules- But when caught, I owned up to the mistake- if on purpose or not. I paid the price, and got on with my life. Now, I am in a position of trust, and my immediate supervisors trust my judgement. If I make a mistake, it's more "I wouldn't have done it that way, I would have done it this way". Thats fine, and I will do it their way if and when the circumstances dictate.
I guess what I am saying- I am not afraid to take responsibility for my actions, and therefore, don't need the services of a union.

just out if curiosity: since you have no use for services of the union do you decline your raises and benefits the Teamsters negotiated for you( if you think the company gives it's workforce raises out of the kindness of their hearts i'd like to direct you to the Partners subforum and see how well people are treated when there is no contract)

I'm thinking the answer is No

 

[Brown to Brown]

Plllllleeeeeeeeeaaaaassseeee!!!!!